Jayco RV Owners Forum
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-18-2011, 10:37 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Casper, Wyoming
Posts: 7
thanks CAMPROCK, have posted on Jayco wall on facebook............
__________________

BigWonderfulWyoming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2011, 10:47 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: AZ, USA, Earth
Posts: 1,342
Goodyear China Bombs? Jayco has been really cheaping out in 2012. On the Eagles, they dropped the stainless kitchen sink for a plastic sink of unknown quality, they now list a Glacier package on the TTs as an option but it appears to be the same insulation as what was a standard in 2011, the sofas are just a single fabric (although I do like them better, they are cheaper), cabinet doors that aren't as nicely machined and finished (one color with no shading in the recessed area, unlike the 2011s), etc., and China Bombs instead of Michelins.
__________________

__________________
Jeannie
Lady Fitzgerald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2011, 05:54 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 13
Actually My 321RLTS is an 2011. The 2012 model does have several differences. The 2012 has a batery disconnect, the 2011 does not.
Smithrjd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2011, 01:24 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2
145 issues

i am dealing with same problem jayco is using creative new math on gawr and gvwr pound ratings it is a mess 3500# axle 1360#tires giving a 2720 gawr 2950 gvwr? on most trailers i have inspected and owned including 53' ref trans you can never have less gawr than gvwr but the powers at be at jayco state: it is 10# to the good side when you subtract 245# from gvwr you get a mathmaticaly safe setup due th tv taking some weight from gvwr that is only ok in static once the unit starts to move it becomes dynamic and tongue weight canbe more than the 245# to 0# to negative i argued with these idiots at jayco they just dont get it the engineer claimed a constant 245# tongue weight nomatter what i replied not possible i fooered to cut the coupler latch off w/torch and we would see how long the tt would stay on the ball since in his twisted mind there was 245# constant tongue weight meaning it was always there he diddint think that was a good idea! i also contacted power king tire talked to tiire engineer concerning 2720 worth of tires under a 2950gvwr vehicle and his reply was NO WARRANTY TIRE IS OVER LOADED END OF STORY a real knowlegable man who does not want his tires in that application and he is persuing to find out who is whole saleing them to jayco this is looking like a ford motor co /firestone disaster and to add insult 2 injury i cannot get a 2012 state inspection because of the gawr/gvwr issue this pratice of stealing tongue weight from gvw to justify in adequate tires is beyond stupid thx 4 listening to my rant
hammer7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2011, 09:25 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: AZ, USA, Earth
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer7 View Post
i am dealing with same problem jayco is using creative new math on gawr and gvwr pound ratings it is a mess 3500# axle 1360#tires giving a 2720 gawr 2950 gvwr? on most trailers i have inspected and owned including 53' ref trans you can never have less gawr than gvwr but the powers at be at jayco state: it is 10# to the good side when you subtract 245# from gvwr you get a mathmaticaly safe setup due th tv taking some weight from gvwr that is only ok in static once the unit starts to move it becomes dynamic and tongue weight canbe more than the 245# to 0# to negative i argued with these idiots at jayco they just dont get it the engineer claimed a constant 245# tongue weight nomatter what i replied not possible i fooered to cut the coupler latch off w/torch and we would see how long the tt would stay on the ball since in his twisted mind there was 245# constant tongue weight meaning it was always there he diddint think that was a good idea! i also contacted power king tire talked to tiire engineer concerning 2720 worth of tires under a 2950gvwr vehicle and his reply was NO WARRANTY TIRE IS OVER LOADED END OF STORY a real knowlegable man who does not want his tires in that application and he is persuing to find out who is whole saleing them to jayco this is looking like a ford motor co /firestone disaster and to add insult 2 injury i cannot get a 2012 state inspection because of the gawr/gvwr issue this pratice of stealing tongue weight from gvw to justify in adequate tires is beyond stupid thx 4 listening to my rant
Hunh?
__________________
Jeannie
Lady Fitzgerald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2011, 11:39 AM   #16
Site Team
 
Crabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia`s Eastern Shore
Posts: 14,654
"i am dealing with same problem jayco is using creative new math on gawr and gvwr pound ratings it is a mess 3500# axle 1360#tires giving a 2720 gawr 2950 gvwr?"


I must say this is not exclusive to Jayco, and is certainly not new math. Many TT`s including my last one which was a 2003 Coachmen the axle and tire ratings did not add up to the GVWR. This had me perplexed as well until I did some researching and low and behold many trailers rely on tongue weight to carry some of the GVWR. I agree that the tires and axles SHOULD be rated to carry the full weight of the GVWR on a trailer, but unfortunately many do not.
__________________
2017 Coachmen Catalina 283RKS
2004 Chevy 2500 HD CC 6.0l
2010 Jayflight 28BHS (sold)
Crabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2011, 12:17 PM   #17
Moderator Emeritus
 
Rustic Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer7 View Post
snip.......that is only ok in static once the unit starts to move it becomes dynamic and tongue weight canbe more than the 245# to 0# to negative i argued with these idiots at jayco they just dont get it the engineer claimed a constant 245# tongue weight nomatter what i replied not possible i fooered to cut the coupler latch off w/torch and we would see how long the tt would stay on the ball since in his twisted mind there was 245# constant tongue weight meaning it was always there he diddint think that was a good idea!......snip
Interesting post.......,

But the Jayco engineer is correct, the tongue weight at the hitch ball doesn't change under normal towing conditions. Now, if the cargo in the TT was moving around, and/or a 1/2 filled tank was sloshing water/solids around, then possibly the tongue weight could fluctuate. IMO under towing conditions where there is TV/TT bouncing taking place you would see more weight fluctuation taking place over the TV's rear axle, and the resulting effect of this would be of a higher concern to me.

IMO cutting the coupler off is a moot point, no matter how much tongue weight you have on the hitch ball (with an open or cut-off TT coupler) some dynamic event will eventually cause the TT coupler and hitch ball to part ways.

I agree that it would be nice to have tires rated for the full GVWR of a particular TT, HTT, etc., but for now it's all the more reason to confirm that our weights are within TV/TT manufacture specified limits, including the recommended 10% to 15% tongue weight.

Just my 2 cents.

Bob
__________________

2016 GM 2500HD 6.0L/4.10
2018 Jay Flight 24RBS
2005 Jayco Eagle 278FBS (retired)
1999 Jayco Eagle 246FB (retired)
Reese HP Dual Cam (integrated sway control)
Rustic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2011, 10:11 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 13
There are some NHSTA regs, but are some what vauge:
New 49 cfr 571.120 tire and rim selection regs as of 6/15/08 says this.
(snip)

Quote:

S10. Each motor home and recreation vehicle (RV) trailer must meet the applicable requirements in S10.
S10.1 On motor homes, the sum of the gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) of all axles on the vehicle must not be less than the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).
S10.2 On RV trailers, the sum of the GAWRs of all axles on the vehicle plus the vehicle manufacturer's recommended tongue weight must not be less than the GVWR. If tongue weight is specified as a range, the minimum value must be used.

So I guess it comes down to what is the specified tounge/pin weight ratio. My new 5th wheel is also right on the ragged ass edge. I guess it all comes down to the buck, sorry to see the RV industry is going this way. I would have happily paid more for better tires and a better rating. But then again I am not new at this. Perhaps dumb enough not to have noticed this until after purchase. What say you Jayco Engineers? So I guess that I will have to spend another $1200 to replaced the load range D tires with E range tires. Just REALLY hope the rims will take the extra 15PSI, or did Jayco cut the corner razor thin on the rims as well??
Smithrjd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2011, 06:36 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic Eagle View Post
Interesting post.......,

But the Jayco engineer is correct, the tongue weight at the hitch ball doesn't change under normal towing conditions. Now, if the cargo in the TT was moving around, and/or a 1/2 filled tank was sloshing water/solids around, then possibly the tongue weight could fluctuate. IMO under towing conditions where there is TV/TT bouncing taking place you would see more weight fluctuation taking place over the TV's rear axle, and the resulting effect of this would be of a higher concern to me.

IMO cutting the coupler off is a moot point, no matter how much tongue weight you have on the hitch ball (with an open or cut-off TT coupler) some dynamic event will eventually cause the TT coupler and hitch ball to part ways.

I agree that it would be nice to have tires rated for the full GVWR of a particular TT, HTT, etc., but for now it's all the more reason to confirm that our weights are within TV/TT manufacture specified limits, including the recommended 10% to 15% tongue weight.

Just my 2 cents.

Bob
the so called mmoot point of cutting off coupler with torch was dramtic but i said it to make a point that the given static{stationary force applied to tv} will vary while the tv tt are in dynamic state{traveling on road surface} the jayco engineer was stating that no matter what under all conditions ie expansion joints,water sloshing,bumps,areodynamic sideforce,frontaldown force off camber tight radius turns wash boarding of dirt roadsswaying of tt THE HITCH HEIGHT OF THE 245# NEVER VARIES 1 OUNCE IT IS ALWAYS THERE AT 245# IT IS A CONSTANT A GIVEN NO FLUCTUATION PERIOD. now bob how do you justify your state ment that if the tt had 245# of constant un changing down force what dynamic event would cause the coupled to come off the ball?
hammer7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2011, 10:13 AM   #20
Moderator Emeritus
 
Rustic Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer7 View Post
the so called mmoot point of cutting off coupler with torch was dramtic but i said it to make a point that the given static{stationary force applied to tv} will vary while the tv tt are in dynamic state{traveling on road surface} the jayco engineer was stating that no matter what under all conditions ie expansion joints,water sloshing,bumps,areodynamic sideforce,frontaldown force off camber tight radius turns wash boarding of dirt roadsswaying of tt THE HITCH HEIGHT OF THE 245# NEVER VARIES 1 OUNCE IT IS ALWAYS THERE AT 245# IT IS A CONSTANT A GIVEN NO FLUCTUATION PERIOD. now bob how do you justify your state ment that if the tt had 245# of constant un changing down force what dynamic event would cause the coupled to come off the ball?
Hammer7,

Under the conditions of an open coupler (or cut-off), which my second paragraph addresses in my post, I stated "some dynamic event will eventually cause the TT coupler and hitch ball to part ways"..., to state with certainty what dynamic event wasn't part of my statement. For clarification please note that I also stated "no matter how much tongue weight", I didn't state a constant un changing down force.

Based on the added detail of your follow-up post it sounds like you had a in-depth conversation with the Jayco Representative.

Bob
__________________

__________________

2016 GM 2500HD 6.0L/4.10
2018 Jay Flight 24RBS
2005 Jayco Eagle 278FBS (retired)
1999 Jayco Eagle 246FB (retired)
Reese HP Dual Cam (integrated sway control)
Rustic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Virginia State Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2002-2016 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.